British Consumer Association Withdraws Competition Claim Against Qualcomm

A British consumers’ organization has withdrawn its competition claim against Qualcomm after it determined the Competition Appeal Tribunal was likely to find Qualcomm was not at fault.

The consumers’ organization, Which?, filed the claim in February 2021 on behalf of around 29 million British consumers, alleging that Qualcomm had “breached UK competition law by taking advantage of its dominance in the patent-licensing and chipset markets.” The claim said that UK owners of Apple and Samsung smartpones who purchased their devices between 2015 and 2024 were likely to have overpaid for their phones.

According to the claim, Qualcomm “charged manufacturers like Apple and Samsung inflated fees for technology licences, which have then been passed on to consumers in the form of higher smartphone prices.”

The payout was expected to be up to £30 for individual consumers, while most consumers would have received around £17. At the time, Which? said, “Qualcomm has already been found liable by regulators and courts around the world for similar anticompetitive behaviour and Which? is urging Qualcomm to settle this claim without the need for litigation by offering consumers their money back.”

However, on Tuesday, Which? sent out a press release noting that, after six years of proceedings, it has reached an agreement with Qualcomm under which Qualcomm would not make any payments to it or the Class. Which? said it is applying to the Tribunal for permission to withdraw the proceedings, and the agreement is still subject to the Tribunal’s approval.

According to Which?, it concluded based on the arguments and evidence presented throughout the lengthy trial that:

“(a) Qualcomm did not coerce Apple, Apple’s Chipset Manufacturers (CMs), or Samsung to sign any patent licences or chipset agreements;
(b) Qualcomm did not leverage its position as a chipset supplier to coerce Apple, Apple’s CMs, or Samsung to agree to any licensing terms; and
(c) Qualcomm’s licensing and chipset practices did not infringe competition laws, did not result in inflated royalties, and did not lead to an increase in prices consumers paid for
their mobile phones.”

Qualcomm welcomed Which?’s statement and agreement to withdraw the claim, noting that its conclusion “reaffirms what the courts in the United States have repeatedly held: Qualcomm’s licensing practices are lawful and do not harm competition.”

In February of last year, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued an opinion in Key v. Qualcomm Inc. affirming most of the Northern District of California’s dismissal of a class complaint alleging antitrust claims under California state law against Qualcomm over its “no chips, no license” policy of tying chip sales to standard essential patent (SEP) licenses. And in 2020, the Ninth Circuit also vacated a decision of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California finding that Qualcomm had engaged in unlawful licensing practices, and reversed a permanent, worldwide injunction against several of Qualcomm’s core business practices.

Image Source: Deposit Photos
Author: rafapress
Image ID: 263907752